I've heard of the concept that democracy is more effective when you make it so only property owners have the right to vote. Seems harsh, but it prevents vagabonds and other undesirables from having a say in the affairs of a community or country. If you own a house or land in the area, you're much more likely to take political issues seriously, because your own welfare and that of the community are closely linked. It also motivates people to take control of their lives. Here in the U.S., where every citizen 18 or older has the right to vote, it's obvious that part of the reason the Left wing has gained so much power is because they fight for socialist programs like welfare and food stamps, which gets them the votes of all the underlings.

...Democracy "seems" to be the best is it really? Thanks to Democracy the ones our ancestors conquered are now our equals!
If you Approve of Democracy then please state why it is the future?
If you can see it's failings then place your opinion, thanks!

Review of Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon S. Wolin

Inverted Totalitarianism: A New Way of Understanding How the U.S. Is Controlled

Democracy is what is destroying the white race. Negroes, bean-beans, and queers all rally behind democracy to promote their agendas. If the white race did not have these non-white influences amongst us, democracy could work. But since we do have them amongst us, democracy is what will prove to be our undoing.

Obviously it hasn't worked for America as America started out as a White country under Democracy but now has morphed into a Socialist Welfare State. The problem with Democracy is money can corrupt the process too easily. National Socialism which was a totalitarian form of government could not be corrupted by money because the foundation of the movement was centered not only the principle that every man should get a vote but that the first goal of the state is to ensure the Racial welfare of its people. Therefore Democracy is at the mercy of the whims of rich men who happen to be Jewish while National Socialism is incorruptible because it states the highest goal is not that every man should get a vote but that every man be subordinate to the goal of the preservation of the Race.

The thing is, tyranny is a loaded argument. The assertion of tyranny is typically utilized to demonize an opposition on purely emotional grounds, not critical ones. The real question is, what is tyranny?

There are three definitions of the word tyrant. The first is its original definition, the Greek word tyrannos, which simply meant a monarch or a ruler of a polis; it had no negative connotation. The second is the classical definition, which defined a tyrant as a ruler who rules for his own benefit, even if it harms his subjects. The third is the more modern definition, derived from the thinkers of the "Enlightenment", which is any system which not Liberal, irrespective of any conditions in play (such as the ruler actually benefiting the people). The third definition is merely an ad hominem, used to demonize any opposition similar to the word racist or sexist.

According to the original definition, any ruler is a tyrant; thus, since it's not qualitative, it's not really useful in this case. According to the modern definition, any Authoritarian or Totalitarian ruler is a tyrant; thus, since it's bias, it's not really useful in this case. It is only the classical definition which is useful, because it is actually qualitative. As such, a king is not a tyrant, especially not if he is beneficent. He is only a tyrant if he becomes harmful to his subjects, and thus a bad leader - which is really the concept the word was aiming for all along.

Maybe the words "tyrant" and "tyranny" are not accurate, but that's only a minor detail, in my opinion.

Of course that it is possible to have a king/leader with absolute or nearly absolute powers who is actually interested in the well-being of the people under his leadership and whose actions are really beneficial. In history we can find plenty of examples of such men.

However, that is not the issue. The problem is that people under such a system lack basic liberties and are basically at the mercy of the government, which might be benevolent now, but it might not be the same 1 year or 10 years into the future. Practically, people have very limited control of their own lives and their mere existence can ultimately depend on the whims of the leader.

Hopefully, democracy can consistently produced good, strong trustworthy White leaders/societies that is able to defend, protect and serve White interest and at the same time continue to dominate the world. A White leader/society should care more about White rights, White future, White freedom, White culture, White civilization than non-white destructive interests.

Democracy worked when the people were white, democracy has obviously failed - we're just in the process of seeing it fail.

I'd rather have a country that was run by someone that said "I care about the people because it's my country and I'm going to be in charge forever, and my kids are going to rule after me" than someone like Deval Patrick that said "Most of my political allies are up for re-election so they don't want to raise taxes" - in other words he's not up for re-election so he doesn't give a crap what people think about what he does.

If he said a high school basketball player had nappy hair it'd be a national scandal and everyone would know about it, but he says "I'm not running again so I don't care what the voters think about what I do" and not a peep.